I have to agree with Robert Glidden. To get around debates about
language, infosystem, etc, and to strike at the real nature of the
system, we should settle on comp.vr.vrml. It doesn't close
down the fact that it uses a WWW approach, or that it is
a scene description language.
That leaves comp.vr open to other related topics, a long-overdue
change - its big enough of a topic to be bumped up.
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Glidden <[email protected]>
Get enough mail on a subject and I guess eventually I feel like I have to
say something too.
So how about comp.vr.vrml?
Vrml is not exactly graphics, infosystems or language, but it seems a
little presumptuous to do comp.vrml. The class of stuff, though, is
virtual reality, with all its blossoming permutations and implications.
Objections: "virtual reality means immersive systems" ie. no headmount,
its not true virtual reality. I think this is passe, non-immersive
virtual reality is generally recognized as as legitimate as the immersive
kind (plus I am sure some people are working on immersive implementations
of vrml).
Comp.vr.vrml recognizes the new category of topics involved with vrml,
and comp.vr is broad enough to be a legitimate second level category.
# Randy Stiles
# [email protected]